User Reviews

In our age of universal celebrity, where we know everything that everyone famous thinks (or, more usually, does not think), it's refreshing to rediscover how interesting it can be to hear from someone whose achievements are great but who rarely speaks about them. Bob Dylan has given an extensive interview to Martin Scorcese for Scorcese's film about his emergence from the folk scene and his subsequent "betrayal" of that scene when he went electric: it's absorbing to watch, although, in the end, Bob doesn't actually say that much specific. However, the interview is complemented by a selection of other distinguished talking heads and most crucially, a rich selection of archive footage, going back to Dylan's very first days as a performer. What one notices is just how young he was: the depth and sophistication of even his earliest music can blind one, listening on record, to the age of the performer producing it. He also comes across as playful, self-confident and quite naturally baffled by some of idiocy going on around him: far from seeming incomprehensibly moody, Dylan actually appears as sane as anyone could be at the centre of such attention. It's the music, though, that is really the key to this film, with a rawness and edge, as well as a cleverness, that is still unsurpassed today (and this comment applies equally to the acoustic and the electric material). Since 1966 when the film ends, Dylan has continued to tour and write occasionally great songs; but the body of work that he produced in the early to mid 1960s stands clear for its amazing quantity and quality. If nothing else, 'No Direction Home' stands as clear testament to that achievement.

Fascinating, but when the film was over I didn't really understand Dylan's genius to any greater degree than I had before. How did he go from being just another musician on the folk revival scene (as Paul Wilson observes, "(Dylan) wasn't the best, he wasn't the worst", and he had the same basic repertoire as his contemporaries) to writing songs like 'Masters of War', 'Mr. Tambourine Man', and 'Like a Rolling Stone'? And how did it happen so quickly? Probably this is as much of a mystery to Bob Dylan as it is to everyone else. Documenting honest-to-God inspiration of the type that Dylan received in those years--and understanding why he, rather than Joan Baez or Phil Ochs or Tom Paxton, received it--might well be impossible. But "No Direction Home" is utterly engrossing anyhow. Martin Scorsese does a fantastic job of documenting Dylan's emergence from the cold, dreary Midwest, the time he spent honing his craft in the folk clubs of Greenwich Village, and his rise to superstardom. (Yes, the audience at the Newport Folk Festival really *did* boo Dylan when he played a brief electric set there in 1965!) Of particular interest are the interviews with Allen Ginsberg and Dave Van Ronk, both of whom departed this life well before the completion of Scorsese's film. Obviously this is a must-see if you're a Dylan fan, but "No Direction Home" should--despite its length--hold the interest of more casual viewers, too.

Well, it took a director as great as Martin Scorsese and 45 years of recording, travelling, ramblin' and bein' busy bein' born instead of dyin', but at long last Dylan fans from Dharma to Duluth have a glimpse behind the genius in the dark sunglasses. A remarkable film--for so many reasons that it would take at least 3 1/2 hours (the length of the movie) to list them--but the main reasons anyone with an interest in His Bobness needs to view this film are as follows: 1) Scorsese's direction: Almost 30 years after he chronicled the passing of a musical era with his magnificent film The Last Waltz, Scorsese once again captures musical brilliance and history on film as only someone who truly appreciates Dylan's historical as well as cultural influence could. A Master Director chronicles a Master Musician. 2) Archival footage of everyone you never saw before on film, including Gene Vincent, Hank Williams, and early 60's Greenwich Village pioneers aplenty and of course.. 3) Bob. For reasons known only to himself, Dylan actually speaks on record about his least favorite topic, himself. Along with last year's autobiography, this film reveals far more of the portrait of the artist as a young man than could ever have been anticipated given Bob's notorious closed-mouthed history on his own history.

With Elvis, Ray Charles and John Lennon gone, there are few--if ANY--artists whose historical and musical importance even come near that of Bob Dylan. In No Direction Home, we see as much, if not more, than we are entitled to see about how and why young Robert Zimmerman from Hibbing, MN became the most important songwriter of the 20th century.

He's got everything he needs--he's an artist--but just this once, he DOES look back.

I really don't know what to say after viewing Martin Scorsese's mesmerizing three-hour+ made for PBS film except that I am truly impressed. And although it is more of a chronicle of an era (the early 1960's and what lead to Dylan's fame) then a biography of Bob Dylan I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. At first I was skeptical, I thought it had pretensions of grandeur: Dylan/and Scorsese? I mean come on guys!? But the piece delivered. It was cut in such a way that seemed to create drama out of raw material. Although ponderous at times the film not only held my interest but made me want to find out more about Bob Dylan, the NYC folk scene, Pete, Seger, Woody Guthrie, Allen Ginsberg, Liam Clancy, Joan Baez and many others. The interviews were fascinating, humorous and sometimes truly educational. There is a purpose and a true sense of that time to the film that is unlike most other "rock" documentaries. In one of my favorite interviews in the film Bob Neuwirth explains how in the early 60's money (financial success) was not an issue when it came to the arts. Back then it was about if an artist had something to say. Weather it was Bob Dylan or Ornette Coleman what people would ask was "does he (the artist) have something to say." Money and the "bottom line" didn't enter into the equation. It was a whole different world back then. Neuwirth states this so glibly that you'll wish you had a time-machine to go back and check it out for yourself. I have at least one friend who was disappointed in the film. He felt that it didn't illuminate the life of Dylan enough in that it ends in 1966 with him being "booed" offstage for "going electric." But apparently this is all Dylan wanted to reveal for this film. He (and his people) gave Martin Scorsese specific instructions to only chronicle this period. Scorsese was asked to sort through hours of material (including 10-hours of recent Dylan interviews). The result is amazing considering these limitations. Instead of illuminating the Dylan myth the film uses "myth" to stir a powerful narrative, one that rivals many of Scosese's latest cinematic endeavors. Perhaps another director would have tried to create something more definitive regarding the details of Dylans life and songwriting process but Scorsese has always favored myth over reality in him films. And in the case of No Direction Home I believe he mixes together the perfect combination of myth, mystery and reality. Sure there are great Dylan performances throughout the feature but they are tied together by a larger narrative which is the journey of an artist (at a particular stage in his life). Some of the highlights for me musically and otherwise were Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival where he has trouble tuning his guitar but still comes off as some sort of "folk messiah" to the folkies present ( was that scene even real?! ), Al Kooper talking about how he came up for the organ part for Like a Rolling Stone (hilarious). Dylan performing (if only snippets of, sigh…) "Masters of War," and his "Hard Rain" and the final performance of the film (Like a Rolling Stone) when Dylan summons his band (the Band) to "play it f*ck#ng loud!" in order offset the hecklers booing his electric set in England in 1966. Ironically I recently read a quote from Jim Jarmusch talking about NYC in the late 1970's, he said, "I feel so lucky. During the late 70's in New York, anything seemed possible. You could make a movie or a record and work part time, and you could find an apartment for 160 bucks a month. And the conversations were about ideas. No one was talking about money. It was pretty amazing. But looking back is dangerous. I don't like nostalgia. But, still, damn, it was fun. I'm glad I was there." Be it the early 1960's or the late 1970's perhaps the charm and "myth" of such an era inspired Dylan and company to chronicle only his "golden era" as opposed to trying to trace his entire career ( which could have proved to be less then fruitful ). Instead we get a wonderful slice of life about a great time in American History, about a great artist and put together on film by a great filmmaker. I'm not going to complain.

I've just watched the first part of 'No Direction Home". All I can say is thank you Mr Scorsese for bringing us such a wonderful document. I suppose the movie has most resonance for people who were there and buying the records and listening to the performances, but I would have thought even a fifteen year-old looking at the footage of Dylan singing "Pawn in The Game" would feel a shiver of wonderment.

I did not actually go to any of the '65 and '66 concerts (something I always regret) but I know many people who did, and many have told me that the cheering was usually as loud as the booing, and I don't know if that will fully come across; but a wonderful document, nevertheless.

And that is why Scorsese must be applauded; the editing was superb, the interviews were well chosen, the music clips were generous and Dylan is wonderfully articulate and revealing.

Yes boys and girls I enjoyed it; and Highway 61 in all its vinyl glory is going on the turntable right now!

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. Martin Scorcese makes another visually stunning film, and paints Dylan in a way nobody else could have. Instead of being asked stupid questions by stupid journalists, Dylan has a camera put in front of him and he just speaks. He's got a bit of a schedule, but he does what he wants with it. I really don't have words for how this movie made me feel. The sheer passion behind it just fueled my fierce love for Dylan even more.

The live bootlegs and behind-stage clips give a wonderful insight into Dylan's world. He is a man who just emanates coolness like it was the way he was born. It seems like nobody can ever have the upper hand on this man, and it's truly a delight to watch.

Beautiful.

Having been a casual listener of Bob Dylan, I found this documentary rather insightful and well-made. Narrated by Dylan, director Martin Scorsese basically interviews friends, colleagues and family of Dylan (as well as Dylan himself) and gets to the roots of his inspiration and upbringing.

As I said above, I'm not a huge fan of Dylan insofar that I'd be able to tell you all of his songs, albums, etc. Some of my personal favorites are "Like a Rolling Stone," "The Man in Me" and of course "Knockin' On Heaven's Door." The film's soundtrack uses Dylan songs which is a nice addition as well. It's four hours long and when screened on TV comes in two parts, so you may have to see it in two viewings. But I found out a lot about Dylan that I didn't know before and I think that's the point.

Well-made, well-documented.

I felt thoroughly happy while watching No Direction Home on BBC 2 over the past two evenings - lots of video and audio footing I had never heard or seen before and precious insights into the workings of Dylan's poetic mind.

I have been following Dylan for over 40 years now and have always been a fan, except during his Christian period. I found it illuminating to learn that, when Joan Baez had just delivered to him a deep-going analysis of one of his songs, Dylan said he was curious to see what other reviewers would make of it. Himself he didn't know what the hell it all meant. He just wrote beautiful texts without worrying too much if all the combined lines would make coherent sense.

Dylan uses words like an impressionist painter uses paint. Those paintings can confer a sense of beauty without necessarily offering a clear idea of what is actually presented. Dylan's songs are collections of beautiful phrases and words. Don't ask him to explain the meaning of existence to us. Just enjoy his unique songs and magical voice. In his own words, he is "just a song and dance man". And a sublime one at that!

Profound thanks to Scorsese for making this picture. A 10 out of 10. (And thanks to Philconcannon for his excellent review.)

The definitive film on Dylan is still D.A. Pennebaker's 1967 documentary "Dont Look Back," parts of which are integrated into this Martin Scorsese look at the ambiguous musical genius. But this documentary is on target also, looking at Dylan from his beginnings till the time he became a pop music icon and a darling of the anti-establishment pseudo-intellectuals. To Dylan's credit he was able to stay clear of ideological labeling and crass commercialization. His mock interviews were quite the opposite of Elvis' choir boy type imaging, although in truth Elvis was as much a rebel as Dylan and the two obviously admired each other. How far the press would go is well illustrated in "No Direction Home" when a shallow media mind virtually orders Dylan to suck his sunglasses while he shoots the pose. Not to be nonplussed, Dylan pokes the sunglasses in the news hound's face indicating he could suck them himself.

PBS divided Scorsese's film into two parts on separate weeks. The first part is strong on the roots of the folk revival movement in the United States, a climate that made Dylan possible. Archival footage of these early folk singers show much talent and much amateurism. One of the best clips highlights the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Macon at the height of their popularity in their turtle-neck sweaters with Tommy warbling the mournful "Butcher Boy, aka Railroad Boy," one of their best selections. Dylan at The Newport Folk Festival is emphasized, especially the time he shocked his fans by going electric.

Part 2 of the documentary then focuses on Dylan when he reached the height of popularity with "Like a Rolling Stone," from which the title "No Direction Home" is derived. In an interview on PBS following the showing of Part 2, Scorsese explains that he knew nothing of Dylan personally until "Like a Rolling Stone" began to dominate the airways. So much of what is shown in the documentary is new for Scorsese as well as for many of the viewers: New discoveries of one of the seminal musical figures of the 20th century. Basically, the time-frame of "No Direction Home" ends with Dylan's legendary motorcycle wreck which led many a fan to believe their idol was dead.

There is much raw concert footage of Dylan in London and elsewhere that alone is worth the viewing. This is an especially entertaining look at Dylan for his fans who liked his music from the start. For others, it shows what they missed but can now enjoy vicariously.

On a personal note: I was in college when Dylan began to ooze out of the vinyl. I remember strolling through one of the dorms at Arkansas State and hearing "Talking World War III Blues" meandering from one of the rooms. The first song I ever heard Dylan sing was "Blowin' in the Wind" on a compilation album released by Columbia that contained only one Dylan song plus his harmonica accompaniment on Carolyn Hester's "Swing and Turn Jubilee." There were plenty of liner notes to help introduce me to folk music. From hearing Dylan, I thought he was an old man. His voice seemed shaky and unsure of itself. I reasoned maybe he had been re-discovered from the 20's or 30's like Mississippi John Hurt. Once becoming a Dylan junkie, I stayed with him and still like his music.

The thrill of seeing him in person in Memphis around 1979 is hard to explain. He did a full show with his band. The part I loved best was when he came on stage with just his acoustic guitar and harmonica and did some of his early sounds. I also remember someone in the audience who was stoned throwing a bag of reefer onto the stage. Dylan sashayed over in a nonchalant way, still singing and playing, and kicked the bag off. When I went to the privy, several Dylan fans were ODed on the floor. The pot smoke encircled the crowd but I don't recall any incidents with the police or otherwise. Dylan put on a great show.

I won't say - Thank you Scorsese, I'll say - Thank you Dylan. I wasn't aware you had all that humor as a young man (and still): - How many protest singers? - 136. And this reporter don't get it, even though people are laughing: - Do you mean exactly 136, or ca 136?? And so on.

Of course I love Dylan's music, his singing voice, his words (I've read his poems, and the novel Tarantula, no wonder he has been suggested for the Nobel Prize in literature more than once).

But this film, then, it's not just about Dylan, it's about how humanity evolved on this planet in the decade we call the sixties. There's so many voices in this movie, I learned so much: - Who is she? - Who is he? - What was that? .. and so on. And searching the internet I found out a great deal, and so got inspired to find out even more.. and so on..

..I'm glad to be alive, thank you all, thank you Scorsese, thank you Zimmerman, Gunnn, Dylan, whatever...

Ola, Norway

I really enjoyed seeing Bob as he was at 18-25 which is what the period covers. In truth - the present day interview segments with Bob at 64 don't shed that much light on many of the moments captured during the various tours and performances in the 59-66 period. We get more information from the ridiculous interviews of the time and a real sense of the absurd which is confirmed by Bob in the current day.

"No Direction Home" appears to be, in part a way to deconstruct some of the myths surrounding Bob's early career. It also seems like the media of the day was intent on categorizing Bob while he saw music and performing from a much more fluid viewpoint. In my view he was a music explorer or "expeditionary" as he reminds us and his search for an authentic voice in music was much more significant than any of the labels that were placed on him.

As the story unfolds - we get to share some of the frustrations and exhilaration of live shows as he gets to rework both his own back catalogue and react to the well intended but misplaced public expectations of him - at the time. Not surprisingly he resisted this and this idea is a recurring them in No Direction Home.

Luckily the interviews with contemporaries such as Joan Baez and go much further in exploring the mythology surrounding the story. The best point comes from Joan who notes that even though Bob was never overtly political (more about the songs - than the politics) he did give the protest movement some of their best songs ever - and you can't argue with that. Particularly liked the story about Bob's university enrollment - "too busy to actually go to class" - often sleeping after performing all night. And the one about going to visit Woody Guthrie in a mental hospital and playing his own songs back to Woody - when Bob would have been around 20 yrs old.

One of my favorite music / movie memories is seeing "the Last Waltz" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077838/) from 1978 which was also directed by Scorsese and featured the last performance of the Band and Bob appeared as guest on that. The 1966 shows that end this were some of the first for the Band and so this documentary makes 'No Direction Home' some kind of prequel.

For most people the best thing about this collection is that it includes great chunks of "Don't Look Back" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061589/)and some other great archival footage for example - includes a very strange short clip of Hank Williams singing Cold, Cold Heart. Many of these clips are very hard to find and it is always going to be easier to find this DVD than - lets say Reynaldo & Clara from 1978 directed by Bob himself or Eat the Document completed in '72 which covers some of the same '66 shows as featured in this collection.

There is a selection of full length performances hidden away on the DVD and the other way to watch this is to just watch the music clips without the comments. There are also some full length music performances from TV shows and the like. Joan Baez was a total revelation. She was there but managed to come out the other side without frying her brain and still sounds great.

I watched some of this with my 5yr old daughter and she noted that Bob was singing really silly but she liked it. I last saw Bob perform in '86 when his performance was totally crap live. He may as well have stayed home - as he made Tom Petty look good. By contrast this compilation shows us the awesome talents of the young Bob and the more human side, perhaps before the constant touring wore him down.

The young theatrical Bob who changed the timings on songs to make life on the road seems far more interesting than the Bob who has only been semi- present for long periods. The editor has done a great job in compiling and linking the various sequences. The musical material is very powerful and it is easy to engage with the music and forget about the film.

I note that as I write this a new Dylan album has appeared and that it shows signs of humor and a joy of life missing for many years. However it is 3 earlier albums -"Highway 61 Revisited", "Blonde on Blonde" and "Blood on the Tracks" that I'll be checking out next because of this DVD. There is also an autobiography called "The Chronicles" which covers some of the same ground and came out the same time.

I was really disappointed in this most promising movie for a number of reasons.

First, I found the entire production nothing more than antecdotal information shared without a true perspective on what Dylan meant to the music scene of the 60's. We jump from one scene to another of people reminiscing about Dylan, followed by what felt like rebuttals from Dylan himself. "Dylan did this, and then he did this, and then we laughed." For example, Baez moans about how she didn't feel like she should have gone along to England with Bob, and really thought he'd put her on stage, because she did that for him -- followed by Dylan saying he would hope she'd understand why that happened and how he hoped she'd be over it by now.

Second, there was no context to draw from, and no structure to instruct viewers on what they were seeing. I didn't know who half the people in the movie were until I looked it up later, and so I didn't understand the importance or relevance of their comments. Further, they didn't describe enough about the context of the culture of the sixties to help us understand how revolutionary Dylan was. Looking back from today's music scene it doesn't seem that amazing. It was very frustrating to have to research this movie, simply so I could get some value out of having spent four hours waiting for some kind of understanding or insight.

Third, the movie ends at 1966 as if that was the end of his most important years, yet its really the rest of his life that is a testament to what he believes...that he just keep doing what he's doing, because that's what people do.

Finally, In the interview between Charlie Rose and Martin Scorsese I got the sense that Martin completed this project off the corner of his desk, in the midst of other huge projects, and that Dylan was a complete stranger to him. I felt like he was taking credit for throwing some film footage together that he hadn't even looked at. I wasn't impressed. I don't know any more about Dylan now than I did before, and I think this film does him a real disservice.

There's good about this. It is extremely well done. It is endowed with a breath as film, and I suppose we can credit Steve Jobs with assuring that only first class talent was used. Among that talent was Scorsese, a master, certainly in the act of shaping something with a natural rhythm.

That competence makes this absolutely essential viewing. I am not putting it on my essential films list because as a film it doesn't merit it. But if you, dear reader, were not there, actually there as part of the events depicted, you need to see this as a social document. The world then was as different to now in the flows of energy than any other time in the past 500 years is from now,

And this man was every bit as powerful as this hints. More, and that's part of the problem.

The problem is that Scorsese decided to make an understandable story. So he pruned and pruned and pruned until what was left depicts a recognizable arc with extreme clarity, so clear it appears as if the life were invented for this telling.

And sure enough, we get a crisp story about a man who insinuated himself into a Greenwich Village crowd, and absorbed the poetic beat flavor of the time but not the fecklessness. He adopted the guise of a protest singer to get his foot in the door, then assumed the role for many years as our premier poet.

Martin brings us three acts: boy to New York and maturity, Bobby to eminence as a folksinger, Dylan's adventures in rock in spite of adversity. Perhaps the first act isn't as clean because the footage feels more like real history instead of a scripted life.

No mention is made of drugs, or his family (though "Visions of Johanna" is featured). Nothing of his well known exploits with multiple mystical cosmologies. No sex at all. No Beatles or Brian Wilson. All elided in the name of clarity. Well, fine.

And the thing only addresses the first couple really interesting years and avoids the next six or seven where he pounded us with changes and challenges far exceeding those depicted here.

I am reviewing everything there is of Dylan for the upcoming "I'm Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan" which will feature both Cate and Julianne. It should be something special, something challenging and not artificially straightened like this is.

Until then, view this not as Scorsese intended, or as the confused audiences he goes to extremes to depict. Try to view this as someone who was engaged at the time, someone who knew that stronger constructions than "we shall overcome" would be needed to negotiate a way through the world of human brambles and flowers. Try to actually submerse yourself in the art and forget the story of the artist as he would have had it at the time.

It could still save you.

Or if not, look at this as a film which presented Scorsese with a huge problem. Here we have a brilliant young man of whose singular brilliance all the interviewees attest. And then we have recent interviews with the man himself, dull, inarticulate, even stupid. The conventional shaping of the thing would explain by saying he destroyed his gift through drugs and related excesses like fundamentalist religion.

That would be the obvious route, but it complicates the story Scorsese wants to tell. It complicates it simply, because Marty has another image in mind. And it would complicate it indirectly because then you'd have a simple success, drugs, redemption storyspine that you'd have to escape.

So what to do? The solution is to build in a long, otherwise irrelevant stream of press interviews where stupid questions are asked over and over. Stupid, always stupid ones and when faces are shown, it is clear they are those of dolts. Then the recent interview footage of Dylan is tied to that. Surely we don't expect answers to similar questions. It is the choice of a master storyteller to channel our curiosity so. It makes for a clean, Scorsese-type character map.

But if you weren't there, it will cheat you out of the ambiguities and complexities of the real story and that you can find in any Dylan song from "Tambourine Man" to "Lily and the Jack of Hearts."

Still, watch it. But do so lucidly. We can only hope that Jobs wants to tell the rest of the story.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Like the singer's own movie,"Renaldo and Clara" ,"no direction home " is a very looong movie (210 min);there the comparison ends : you do not need the fast forward button here ;every minute of Scorcese 's movie is absorbing ;it might be the best movie dealing with rock ever made.Although it only covers Dylan's first years (it stops in 1966 with the motorcycle accident),it is so dense, so well-documented that it seems to depict an entire life;everyone says ,anyway,that those years were the best in Dylan' s career:there were great things afterwards ("blood on the tracks" ) but who could claim that his music was more ground-breaking than in the 1963-66 era?

"North country blues" ,for instance ,is not heard ,but when Dylan talks about the miners in his hometown ,and he tells us about their plight and the fact that they did not think of rebellion ,it's impossible not to think of the heroine who "married John Thomas a miner".

Although it's linear ,the movie includes scenes of the " rock" period even when Dylan is still a folk singer and has not yet made an album.this may puzzle people not familiar with Dylan's biography but are there any in the people who watch the film?

Scorcese displays a sense of humor which Dylan possessed in those years :for instance "when the ship comes in" (Joan Baez had already told the anecdote in her "and a voice to sing with" autobiography ) was written because Dylan was denied a room in a hotel;it became an anthem in Washington with MLK!

When we see Dylan playing in public (and there are plenty of live songs) we say to ourselves that all these versions are much superior to the studio recordings which sound often like demos :this is confirmed by the singer in the movie.

When asked if he prefers to be acclaimed or booed (he is booed several times in the movie),Dylan hints at Billie Holiday's impressive "strange fruit" after which the audience was silent .

A lot of people ,from Dylan's legend (with the exception of Maria Muldaur)play a big part in the movie:the women, Echo,Suze Rotolo and Joan Baez of course:I'm sure that many people will think that too much is given over to Baez but I personally think that her contribution is vital to the story.Early in the movie,Dylan said that she opened a world for him.Her new cover of "love is just a four-letter world' is moving.Also of great interest are Pete Seeger's ,Dave Van Ronk's ,Allen Ginsberg's and Mike Bloomfield's contributions.Much to my surprise ,an important musician such as Robbie Robertson is not interviewed whereas he's often on the screen.

Minor quibble: the interaction between Dylan and the Beatles (and to a lesser degree with the other groups of the British invasions ) is almost passed over in silence .

Dylan made history: the events depicted in parallel to his-story (Kennedy,MLK or the cold war when he was a teenager) are reflected in his works ,not only the protest song (the prophetic " a hard rain's gonna fall" and the universal "only a pawn in her game" ) but also in the "surrealist" ones ("desolation row")

Bob Dylan was the greatest American songwriter of the twentieth century: he's got the movie he deserved.

Like this ... try these .... None of these movies come close to " No direction come" though....

"Renaldo and Clara" (1978) for fans only;the others should try the DVD which includes all the live performances ONLY.

"Hard Rain" (MTV 1976) unfairly overlooked ,this concert includes fine Dylan/Baez duets as well as a heavy metal "shelter from the storm" version.

"The concert for Bangla Desh" (Saul Swimmer 1972) 5 songs with Harrison,Starr and Leon Russel;youtube offers an outtake ,a Harrison /Dylan duet , "if not for you" .

"Don't look back" (Pennbaker,1967;Scorcese 's movie includes many extracts of this excellent documentary)

"The last waltz" (Scorcese 1978) made when the Band split;Dylan's songs include an exciting version of "baby let me follow you down" .

"Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid " (Peckinpah 1973) Alias who? Best avoid.

People ask, but why did they boo when Bob Dylan started playing electric guitar? Surely it wasn't THAT big a deal??

I was alive then. Believe me, it was. People got VERY upset about it. I think it was something to do with investing so heavily, in an emotional way, with his folk persona. He symbolised every teenager's dream of righteous rebellion. Audiences were far less fragmented in those days. People staked a lot on believing in him (or rather, believing what they wanted his lyrics to mean). You could cut the air with a knife when you asked someone, "if they liked his electric stuff".

Bob Dylan reached the height of his fame after three or four albums of (largely) protest songs. He accompanied himself on nothing more than an acoustic guitar and harmonica. Some were simple stories. Some were deep reflections on man's inhumanity to man. He's had no singing training and his voice was rough. But his lyrics captured the imagination of a generation. It was the time of mass protests against the Vietnam war. The Beatles. The Rolling Stones. Boys wearing their hair long was an act of defiance. Revulsion against the values of their fathers, against a world 'gone wrong'. When I took a Bob Dylan record home, my father told me, "Get that music out of this house!"

The only problem from Dylan's point of view was, he wasn't into being a figurehead for the antiwar movement or anything else. He just wanted to write his poetry. And sing. It's all he did. Many organisations were already on knife-edge over his refusal to 'lead the parade'. Dylan just kept on writing. Albums went platinum. And Dylan kept on writing.

One day he put some of the new poems to music with electric guitars and a backing band. In retrospect, they are easily seen as the same kinda stuff. More sophisticated maybe, but still protestin'. Yet his fans didn't see it like that. The wandering minstrel image was gone. He looked not like a humble folk artist but like a rock star. It all aroused incredible animosity, especially when the technical limitations of some of the sound sets meant people couldn't hear the lyrics properly.

Dylan didn't believe in pandering to his audience, although at one point he observes that he can't get in tune if they're booing. There is a concert where they boo continuously (Why did they buy tickets? he wonders . . . But with no thought of going backwards). The only break in the crowd's response is when he plays a song they recognise cos it happens to be near the top of the charts.

These were kids that really listened to his lyrics. He could fill the Albert Hall and well-behaved, thoughtful teenagers had sat in rapt attention as he intoned Masters of War or Blowin' in the Wind. They wanted his poetry. But more than that, they wanted a hero. When he 'went electric', the volume seemed to crash through the genteel folk stage like a blasphemous typhoon wind. No Direction home is no idealised portrait of Dylan. Meandering through several hours of archive footage, interviews and concerts, Scorsese presents him not as a hero but as a man. The sound quality on some of the electric sets really is abominable. The pre-fame Dylan is accused of stealing some rare records and of telling lies if it was necessary to get on. But this seemingly rambling biopic eventually drives home a point that baffled his audiences at the time: Dylan, in all his guises, just wrote poetry. If people used it for anything else that was up to them.

No Direction Home is not the gripping viewing you might expect for a portrait of one of the most famous recording artists of all time. But it gets to the heart of the man in a way that even Dylan's own (much later) autobiography hardly got to. For those who have read the biography, those early years are beautifully sketched out in the film. Kerouac, Alan Ginsberg, even Woody Guthrie. Talking heads include Joan Baez giving her recollections, and the old man himself, looking back on his early rise to fame with an openness that few have witnessed before. It is a very different film from Pennebaker's Don't Look Back. A more complex portrait than the earlier film set out to achieve, No Direction Home is Bob Dylan deconstructed.

One day someone will make a fictionalised movie of Bob Dylan. And Scorsese's documentary film will be a major historical resource.

the best rock movie of all time. Martin is pure genius. I just love the guy. long movie, sure, but part two just flies by. What an insight. Personally, I think Martin should make more of these on artists that he admires like this one on Bob Dylan. Where does he get this stuff. I read where he really didn't talk to Bob while he was making this movie. even more brilliant. I've got to think Dylan had to love this when he saw it for the first time. It always amazes me how most people just don't get it. The questions they ask, yikes. All i can say is it is a great story. I hope someone does something like this on Scorsese. I love his passion to try to get things right. He is inspiring. Thanks again Martin, and to you too, Bob for having the courage just to be you in the face of it all.

This biography of Bob Dylan traces his life from leaving his home in Hibbing, Minnesota until his motorcycle accident in 1966 at the age of 25. I came away from this with a renewed appreciation for just what a phenomenon he is. I can't think of any other artist who has given us what he has. There are other folk singers and rock stars, but nothing like Dylan.

If you think of a poet as someone who strings words together to produce powerful images and strong emotional reactions, then Dylan is your man. I admit that a lot of Dylan's songs don't make complete sense to me, but they fascinate and afford many interpretations, and just the flow of words is captivating. The first scene in Part 2 provides a great insight. Dylan is seen on the street reading two signs, one saying, "Animals & Birds bought or sold on commission," and the other, "We will collect clip bath & return your dog/ KN1 7727/ Cigarettes and Tobacco." Dylan takes these words and goes on a spontaneous riff for a minute making sentences from them. Clearly he is a man who delights in words and has a great facility with them. You can see from this clip how he can come up with his songs. Could anyone but a poet come up with lines like: "The morning breeze like a bugle blew/ Against the drums of dawn," and "The ocean wild like an organ played/ The seaweed's wove its strands." The film traces the roots of Dylan's early musical interests; it would have been interesting to see how early on he became facile with words.

It is amazing how many inane questions Dylan was asked by a largely ignorant press. Questions like, "Why do you sing?" and "How do you explain your popularity?" It's no wonder he could get frustrated and annoyed. Clips from a current interview are interspersed throughout the film, so Scorcese was able to get more meaningful comments out of him than any of the questioners shown here.

As any good artist Dylan keeps changing. When he went from acoustic guitar to electric with a backup band many people felt somehow betrayed, but he was just moving on. The variety of his output is quite amazing, from poignant songs like, "Lay Down Your Weary Tune," to biting social commentary like "Only a Pawn in the Game," to wistful love songs like "Girl From the North Country," and then all the classics that were the soundtrack for a generation. This film seems to imply that Dylan's career ended with his motorcycle accident, but far from it--he has continued to write and record, having released a new album as recently as 2006.

Another topic of interest covered is the artist/businessman relationship. Most artists want to reach as large an audience that can appreciate them and this usually means that there must be agents, promoters, and investors in the picture. Dylan seems to have navigated this precarious situation successfully while still preserving his integrity. He was not above embellishing his background and you have to feel that he has to have some business sense to have wound up where he is. But he appears to come from that breed of artist whose main goal is to practice his craft rather than achieve fame.

I found parts of the film not completely successful. The interviews with some lesser knowns as Paul Nelson and John Cohen were of questionable value to me--it was not clear just what role they played in Dylan's career. The interviews with Alan Ginsberg are interesting, but his importance might not be understood by one not of his generation. It was frustrating to have songs interrupted or cut short, but I suppose that was necessary in the interests of keeping this under four hours.

Of course the archival footage of, and current interview with, Joan Baez are highlights. I had forgotten just what a pure voice she had, a voice that seemed almost too perfect to be of this world. There is some great archival footage of Johnny Cash, a great performance by Odetta, and fascinating clips of John Jacob Niles, Peter LaFarge, and the Clancy Brothers.

Put Dylan's poetry to music together with his musical talent and distinctive voice and you have a complete package. Of course not everyone appreciates that package, but as Joan Baez said, "If you're interested, he goes way, way deep."

This is an ambitious biography of a complex man and even at almost four hours one feels that much has been left off the table. The work of any artist must remain a mystery.

Bob Dylan is one of the most enigmatic figures in the history of music and this is a great paradox, as he is also one of the most filmed if not the most filmed performer of the recent decades. Martin Scorsese's three hours plus documentary could not have been possible without extensive filming of events like the Newport festival of jazz in 1963 or the earlier documentary film of D.A. Pennebaker on his 1966 tour in Great Britain. We can see in this film several versions of some of his famous songs like 'Hard Rain' or 'Blowing in the Wind'. And yet, despite all this filmed material Dylan intentionally or not keeps an aura of secrecy around his person. Even the interviews seem more destined to build his image than to explain.

Explaining a great artist like Dylan is futile, and Scorsese knows it. He does however help is immensely to understand, feel and love the artist, by bringing alive a lot of sounds and images of the music played in the formative years of Dylan. He takes us by hand and immerses us in the American music and arts scene of the beginning of the 60s. His interviews with people who lived the birth and development of this great talent, and the later interviews with Dylan himself fill in the shining and deep puzzle of this complex individual and creator. His evolution from simple and sensible folks to complex rock and his refusal to enroll in politics by selecting the option to speak his mind only through the language of art become life on screen. The pieces of music we hear are better in the timed recordings than in studio versions. The way the film is made it feels never too long, it never bores, on the contrary it takes us in the universe of one of the greatest artists of our time - and we should be thankful to one of the greatest film-makers of our time for having made this film.

I loved this movie! Especially the footage of Bob Dylan in the UK on the first electric tour - and his youthful, dilated eyes! Had no idea so many audience comments had been captured, and really wish I had seen young Bob back then before anyone really got what he was trying to do. One can't remember Bob Dylan without remembering the times - civil rights, the cold war, Vietnam, and psychedelia and Scorcese captured all this without banality. I gave a speech on Dylan in college, a discussion of his influence on the Beatles. My sister had the poster from Blonde on Blonde up for years. I can play almost every Bob Dylan song on guitar - something I think a lot of my generation can say. I saw him at least 20 times over the years, with the Band, the Grateful Dead, his son backing him - every show an adventure. How many coffee houses and bars had Dylan wanna-bees back then? I was fortunate enough to see Dylan do Mr. Tambourine Man with the Byrds at the Roy Orbison tribute - he was a great influence on me musically. So particularly great about the movie was that it captured the excitement, the controversy, and the crescendo of 1966. This film is worthy of the subject and the director! A really nice job.

A good documentary on the early Bob Dylan, by Martin Scorsese. I was quite impressed by the more recent interviews featuring Dylan's unusually frank, candid, and sober remembrances; I've never seen him that focused before, even if he still comes off as deliberately obtuse. Rare Dylan performance clips in excellent visual quality were also very enjoyable. The only area where I felt this lagged a bit was by including maybe too much padding during the first hour before Bob really started his own recording career. I also found myself longing to continue past the '60s and into Dylan's career in the '70s and '80s. As appreciative as I am to see a modern Dylan looking so sharp, it's a pity that he still winds up giving us too little insight into what he was trying to say with his music, and who he really is. Yeah, I know - that's part of his "mystique". Maybe some day yet.

*** out of ****

First of all I adore Bob Dylan and think he is the greatest songwriter of all time! Bob Dylan's simplicity is sheer perfection, nothing fake at all! Amazing his consistency to write great songs thru every decade. As well as I equally love his voice, his voice and music are the perfect marriage...all with no ego or a front as a star!

However I did not like this film, it was boring as I was only interested in Bob Dylan and not the others sorry..I'm a focus person, so my focus is Bob Dylan and that's all I wanted to see. Yes I understand it's important to show one's influences but Scorsese failed to present it properly. Scorsese is a talented technical film maker but he lacks in the air and magic why he has been overlooked many times: ( However a couple of his films were perfect. He is so grand that the smallest imperfection shadows his grand talent...

A bit of personal disappointment is that nearly every film maker and writer does not mention how Bob Dylan influenced Jimi Hendrix. This film mentions other's that covered his songs but no mention of Jimi Hendrix

The majority of people who watch a 200 minute documentary on Bob Dylan are more than likely going to be Dylan fans so I thought I would give it a try despite being rather on the fence in regards him. Some of his music lives up to his reputation whereas some other songs find me leaning towards those who (unfairly) just dismiss him as a nasal singer without any real talent or coherence. The film does little to change your mind because it pretty much tracks his career up till 1966 without providing a lot of insight or debate about his talent. Of course this is not a surprise and it is only right that the film charts more than debates, because this is not the place for the latter.

However for the casual viewer what is there to justify 200 minutes? Well, first of all I must admit that it is a bit of a job to get through some parts of it but generally what the film does is set Dylan in context. Those not raised during the period will usually struggle to understand the fuss about Bob Dylan because they (I) can't see him in the context of his surroundings and it is this that the film does well. By using lots of archive footage and memories from talking heads, the film presents the history well even if it could have done a better job of really explaining how important he was in the period, rather than just telling me that he was there.

In fact this lack of insight was a bit of a problem for me because, although there is much of interest, it is more of a record than a documentary. The footage will please fans and it is interesting but I must admit that I had hoped for me. Certainly the presence of Scorsese only comes through in the use of his voice once – with so much stock footage I could not understand what the role of the "director" was in this case. I don't wish to completely dismiss the film but just to highlight that fans will certainly take more from this than those with a casual interest. However even fans might struggle with the lack of substance here because, with so much footage to cram in, there is little time for investigation. One very good example of this is the famous cry of "Judas" – it was once the subject of a 60-minute radio documentary but here it is only played; understandable perhaps but it is unfortunately typical of the film. Dylan himself doesn't seem too bothered by the whole thing and his modern interviews at times resemble the footage of the interviews in the sixties where he looks bored and bemused by the inane questions.

Overall this is an interesting film but it is less a documentary and more a record of Dylan in his period. To this end it will please his fans but will probably provide little enlightenment for the casual viewer. Given that the film runs to 200 minutes, it should have done better to deliver plenty of archive footage but yet still have insight and real interest. It is a shame that, although it is very strong in the former, it is rather lacking in the latter.